8 ms·

This is what bothers me about the whole "App Store" stuff with the EU. This entire fight about Apple being required to allow third party "App Stores" -- how abo

by AJ007 1y ago

This is what bothers me about the whole "App Store" stuff with the EU. This entire fight about Apple being required to allow third party "App Stores" -- how about simply the user can load whatever software they want to on the device which they are the owner of? The amount of legalism that's been brought in by both sides, Apple/Google and the regulators, layered in lies (we need to approve the software, register the developers, to protect the user from software), is divorced from the reality of the hardware-software relationship. This has led us down a path where everyone is debating the topics that Google, Apple, and revolving door regulators choose rather than the underlying reality. There is a simple solution to all of this: Google and Apple should no longer be allowed to operate any sort of "App Store" or software distribution channel.

kcplate 1y ago
> There is a simple solution to all of this: Google and Apple should no longer be allowed to operate any sort of "App Store" or software distribution channel. “Simple” solutions can produce unintended outcomes. You want to take a device that is targeted for “everyone” and not just tech savvy people and provide no control or standard to what can be loaded on it? The very idea of it is horrifying to me. You have apparently never sat down on an elderly persons PC in the early ‘00s and tried to sort out all manner of shopping toolbars, coupon widgets, and crapware that has caused their pc to slow to a crawl. It’s literally bad enough with the poor performing apps in app stores but it could be so much worse without it No thanks.
- jjani 1y ago
  Having to caveat it with "in the early '00s" already invalidates your thesis; it means we've managed to largely fix this issue on PC without resorting to giving away device ownership.
  - bartread 1y ago
    I don’t think it invalidates the argument at all. I think it’s more a reflection that people mostly use other devices, like phones and tablets, for tasks they might have used a PC for 20 years ago - at least outside an office environment. That’s not to say the PC experience hasn’t improved - certainly Windows is at least more secure - but that it’s not the only factor, and I don’t think it’s the biggest factor either. One data point for you: the last company I worked for, when I joined in 2017, already >50% of external users were accessing our service via mobile devices.
    - pharrington 1y ago
      The formfactor is the biggest, possibly only, factor. The handheld formfactor works way better for most people than a huge (or even small) stationary brick, or even a laptop.
  - kcplate 1y ago
    You think that companies adopting different technologies to discourage installing software that might be malicious because it hasn’t been reviewed as safe invalidates my argument? Ok, then.
- jjav 1y ago
  > You want to take a device that is targeted for “everyone” and not just tech savvy people and provide no control or standard to what can be loaded on it? The very idea of it is horrifying to me. Were you horrified by the Apple ][?
  - bartread 1y ago
    This is no argument at all. When the Apple II was released microcomputers were still very much in the realms of enthusiasts, and were beginning to make inroads into education. The Apple II was never used by “everyone” and nobody expected it to be, even towards the end of its quite long life. No question, it was a stepping stone to where we are today but you can’t compare an enthusiast/early adopter product from nearly 50 years ago to contemporary Android and iOS devices that are intended for “everyone”, in the way you’re attempting with your comment.
  - kcplate 1y ago
    Nope, but I didn’t have whole countries and millions of bad actors actively trying to steal information and act maliciously on that device either.
- necovek 1y ago
  That's easily solved, ain't it: check the "tech savvy" box, and all "safeguards" are off? Yet instead, we are getting increasingly fewer phones with unlockable bootloaders and root access available. What gives? I've also checked out my mom's phone a year or so back: she had so many crappy apps from official store that it was barely usable. Stores do not really help.
  - kcplate 1y ago
    What possible motivation would Google or Apple have to appease such a small percentage of their user base? I’m “tech savvy” and I would never click that box. Frankly I can’t think of something more risky than installing some random piece of software on a device that I need and use everyday.
    - necovek 1y ago
      If that's the case, what is a practical difference between you having access to your device or not? You could be installing random crap from the store, or not from the store. Or you could not be installing random apps from either. I don't feel any more protected by device restrictions. Yes, containerization helps, but I like having root on my device (eg. I backup different .sqlite files from different apps through ssh to my phone). My phone has FDE, and is probably not at all less "safe" than yours.
      - kcplate 1y ago
        There are a number of mobile phones out there that are fully open. If you need root, go buy one. You seem to have a specific need that I am quite sure that 99.999% of the mobile phone using world do not have and never will have. If I am apple, I recognize that making a phone that makes the .001% happy probably will frustrate the 99.999%. They are quite happy to give that market of maybe 150k users to someone else to keep their 1.5B users content.
        mathiaspoint 1y ago
        Outside of really niche stuff like the Pinephone there aren't. Because of things like this Android is increasingly incompatible with that use model and these days it's pretty safe to assume "phone" == "corporate administration you have no control over."
- joquarky 1y ago
  I remember the turning point in one early relationship was when I uninstalled Bonsai Buddy from a friend's computer and caused a meltdown.
  - kcplate 1y ago
    Fuck that purple gorilla.
jjav 1y ago
> This entire fight about Apple being required to allow third party "App Stores" -- how about simply the user can load whatever software they want to on the device which they are the owner of? The Atari 2600 was an immensely popular home computer for a decade(ish), but it didn't exactly spark the personal computer revolution. Why? Because it used the iphone software distribution model. You could only buy licensed software (in the form of cartridges) even though technically it was of course a programmable computer. So it was as open as an iphone. All the actual progress happened on Apple ][, C64, the Radio Shack computers and later the IBM clones. Because, obviously, anyone could write and sell any software they wanted so the market growth went exponential. A lesson to society, there.
- netsharc 1y ago
  The original iPhone didn't launch with an app store, and they weren't even planning to have one, only to allow big providers like AT&T to write software for it. Jailbreakers and reverse-engineers figured out the API and how to compile apps for the iPhone, and then they figured out they could rent-seek 30% and created a new department in their company that provides them billions of income stream.
- queenkjuul 1y ago
  I don't think that's true. Third parties produced unlicensed 2600 carts in droves. It was Nintendo that enacted strict licensing requirements. The 2600 just sucked as a computer.
  - vunderba 1y ago
    Yeah, I can't imagine ANYONE being able to use a 2600 as a computer. That being said, there was a BASIC programming cart if you were a real masochist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_Programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_Programming
- vunderba 1y ago
  > You could only buy licensed software (in the form of cartridges) even though technically it was of course a programmable computer. In fact just the opposite. Activision was one of the first third-party game manufacturers and Atari tried to sue them into the ground for it. It's widely believed that the massive glut of 3rd party games (with effectively zero quality control) for the 2600 partially contributed to the video game crash of 83 [1]. It's also one of the reasons Nintendo learned from this mistake and enforced everything from limitations around the total number of games a company could produce per year, to the seal of approval, etc. on their Nintendo Entertainment System. Also having grown up with the Atari 2600 - I don't know anybody who would have described it as home computer. It was a video game console first and foremost. Are you possibly thinking of the Atari ST line? [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_8-bit_computers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_8-bit_computers
wkat4242 1y ago
> This is what bothers me about the whole "App Store" stuff with the EU. This entire fight about Apple being required to allow third party "App Stores" -- how about simply the user can load whatever software they want to on the device which they are the owner of? This is because the EU is not a citizens advocacy platform. They're an economic platform mainly built to smooth the cost of doing business in Europe for multinationals. They don't have our best interests at heart. They care more about a big neoliberal common market. The European project started well but mid 90s it got hijacked by hard neoliberal interests, especially the commission.

by AJ007 1y ago

kcplate 1y ago

> There is a simple solution to all of this: Google and Apple should no longer be allowed to operate any sort of "App Store" or software distribution channel. “Simple” solutions can produce unintended outcomes. You want to take a device that is targeted for “everyone” and not just tech savvy people and provide no control or standard to what can be loaded on it? The very idea of it is horrifying to me. You have apparently never sat down on an elderly persons PC in the early ‘00s and tried to sort out all manner of shopping toolbars, coupon widgets, and crapware that has caused their pc to slow to a crawl. It’s literally bad enough with the poor performing apps in app stores but it could be so much worse without it No thanks.

jjani 1y ago
Having to caveat it with "in the early '00s" already invalidates your thesis; it means we've managed to largely fix this issue on PC without resorting to giving away device ownership.
- bartread 1y ago
  I don’t think it invalidates the argument at all. I think it’s more a reflection that people mostly use other devices, like phones and tablets, for tasks they might have used a PC for 20 years ago - at least outside an office environment. That’s not to say the PC experience hasn’t improved - certainly Windows is at least more secure - but that it’s not the only factor, and I don’t think it’s the biggest factor either. One data point for you: the last company I worked for, when I joined in 2017, already >50% of external users were accessing our service via mobile devices.
  - pharrington 1y ago
    The formfactor is the biggest, possibly only, factor. The handheld formfactor works way better for most people than a huge (or even small) stationary brick, or even a laptop.
- kcplate 1y ago
  You think that companies adopting different technologies to discourage installing software that might be malicious because it hasn’t been reviewed as safe invalidates my argument? Ok, then.
jjav 1y ago
> You want to take a device that is targeted for “everyone” and not just tech savvy people and provide no control or standard to what can be loaded on it? The very idea of it is horrifying to me. Were you horrified by the Apple ][?
- bartread 1y ago
  This is no argument at all. When the Apple II was released microcomputers were still very much in the realms of enthusiasts, and were beginning to make inroads into education. The Apple II was never used by “everyone” and nobody expected it to be, even towards the end of its quite long life. No question, it was a stepping stone to where we are today but you can’t compare an enthusiast/early adopter product from nearly 50 years ago to contemporary Android and iOS devices that are intended for “everyone”, in the way you’re attempting with your comment.
- kcplate 1y ago
  Nope, but I didn’t have whole countries and millions of bad actors actively trying to steal information and act maliciously on that device either.
necovek 1y ago
That's easily solved, ain't it: check the "tech savvy" box, and all "safeguards" are off? Yet instead, we are getting increasingly fewer phones with unlockable bootloaders and root access available. What gives? I've also checked out my mom's phone a year or so back: she had so many crappy apps from official store that it was barely usable. Stores do not really help.
- kcplate 1y ago
  What possible motivation would Google or Apple have to appease such a small percentage of their user base? I’m “tech savvy” and I would never click that box. Frankly I can’t think of something more risky than installing some random piece of software on a device that I need and use everyday.
  - necovek 1y ago
    If that's the case, what is a practical difference between you having access to your device or not? You could be installing random crap from the store, or not from the store. Or you could not be installing random apps from either. I don't feel any more protected by device restrictions. Yes, containerization helps, but I like having root on my device (eg. I backup different .sqlite files from different apps through ssh to my phone). My phone has FDE, and is probably not at all less "safe" than yours.
    - kcplate 1y ago
      There are a number of mobile phones out there that are fully open. If you need root, go buy one. You seem to have a specific need that I am quite sure that 99.999% of the mobile phone using world do not have and never will have. If I am apple, I recognize that making a phone that makes the .001% happy probably will frustrate the 99.999%. They are quite happy to give that market of maybe 150k users to someone else to keep their 1.5B users content.
      - mathiaspoint 1y ago
        Outside of really niche stuff like the Pinephone there aren't. Because of things like this Android is increasingly incompatible with that use model and these days it's pretty safe to assume "phone" == "corporate administration you have no control over."
joquarky 1y ago
I remember the turning point in one early relationship was when I uninstalled Bonsai Buddy from a friend's computer and caused a meltdown.
- kcplate 1y ago
  Fuck that purple gorilla.

jjav 1y ago

> This entire fight about Apple being required to allow third party "App Stores" -- how about simply the user can load whatever software they want to on the device which they are the owner of? The Atari 2600 was an immensely popular home computer for a decade(ish), but it didn't exactly spark the personal computer revolution. Why? Because it used the iphone software distribution model. You could only buy licensed software (in the form of cartridges) even though technically it was of course a programmable computer. So it was as open as an iphone. All the actual progress happened on Apple ][, C64, the Radio Shack computers and later the IBM clones. Because, obviously, anyone could write and sell any software they wanted so the market growth went exponential. A lesson to society, there.

netsharc 1y ago
The original iPhone didn't launch with an app store, and they weren't even planning to have one, only to allow big providers like AT&T to write software for it. Jailbreakers and reverse-engineers figured out the API and how to compile apps for the iPhone, and then they figured out they could rent-seek 30% and created a new department in their company that provides them billions of income stream.
queenkjuul 1y ago
I don't think that's true. Third parties produced unlicensed 2600 carts in droves. It was Nintendo that enacted strict licensing requirements. The 2600 just sucked as a computer.
- vunderba 1y ago
  Yeah, I can't imagine ANYONE being able to use a 2600 as a computer. That being said, there was a BASIC programming cart if you were a real masochist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_Programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_Programming
vunderba 1y ago
> You could only buy licensed software (in the form of cartridges) even though technically it was of course a programmable computer. In fact just the opposite. Activision was one of the first third-party game manufacturers and Atari tried to sue them into the ground for it. It's widely believed that the massive glut of 3rd party games (with effectively zero quality control) for the 2600 partially contributed to the video game crash of 83 [1]. It's also one of the reasons Nintendo learned from this mistake and enforced everything from limitations around the total number of games a company could produce per year, to the seal of approval, etc. on their Nintendo Entertainment System. Also having grown up with the Atari 2600 - I don't know anybody who would have described it as home computer. It was a video game console first and foremost. Are you possibly thinking of the Atari ST line? [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_8-bit_computers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_8-bit_computers

wkat4242 1y ago

> This is what bothers me about the whole "App Store" stuff with the EU. This entire fight about Apple being required to allow third party "App Stores" -- how about simply the user can load whatever software they want to on the device which they are the owner of? This is because the EU is not a citizens advocacy platform. They're an economic platform mainly built to smooth the cost of doing business in Europe for multinationals. They don't have our best interests at heart. They care more about a big neoliberal common market. The European project started well but mid 90s it got hijacked by hard neoliberal interests, especially the commission.